Disease Proof : Disease Proof : Health & Nutrition News & Commentary : Dr. Joel Fuhrman

More fog surrounding the “Master Cleanser.” EMaxHealth is on it:

Some critics point to lack of essential nutrients in this fast, citing a deficiency of protein, vitamins, and minerals. As a result of these deficiencies, individuals on the diet may experience dizziness, delirium, and fainting in the short term, with possible damage to the body occurring in longer-term applications. Dr. Joel Fuhrman attributes these effects to detoxification, which he says passes after the toxins are eliminated.


Many authors assert the benefits of fasting are related to its lack of nutrients, particularly macronutrients.

Dr. Ed Zimney has asserted that, while toxins (such as mercury from the ingestion of fish) do accumulate over time, lemon juice and maple syrup could "not in any possible way eliminate any of these toxins."

People with intestinal conditions such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome may experience added discomfort while on the cleanse. However note that this is in fact one of the treated conditions of the fast.

There is a risk that the saltwater "flush" may remove both beneficial and harmful bacteria from the body. A no-food diet may cause the gut to stop passing food, resulting in constipation, or may make the consumption of food immediately after the fast painful. These are the important reasons to follow the fasts' instructions correctly.

For more of Dr. Fuhrman’s thoughts on the Master Cleanser, check out: Master Cleanser Redux.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This is a great post from The New York Times Well blog, Medical Myths Even Doctors Believe. I was shocked by a couple of them myself. Here they are:

3. Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death.

The claim has been repeated in movies and talk-show monologues, but it’s not true. The growth of hair and nails requires “a complex hormonal regulation” that stops after the body dies. The reason for the long-held belief may be that dehydration of the body after death, and subsequent shrinking of soft tissue, can create the illusion of growth of hair and nails.

6. Eating turkey makes people especially drowsy.

This myth stems from the fact that turkey contains tryptophan, a chemical also made by the human body. Scientific studies show that sleep and mood are affected by tryptophan.


However, turkey does not contain an exceptional amount of tryptophan. Chicken and beef contain about the same amount, and pork and cheese contain more tryptophan per gram than turkey. Because turkey is consumed with other foods, absorption of tryptophan from turkey is minimal, noted the authors. The myth likely stems from the fact that everyone feels drowsy after eating a large meal because the body is using energy to digest food and blood flow and oxygenation to the brain decreases. Large meals in the United States usually occur around Thanksgiving and Christmas, holidays during which turkey is often served.

Number 6 gives you plenty of reason to kick your lazy uncle off the couch on Thanksgiving!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Do you count calories? I hope not. I don’t. Big waste of time if you ask me, but, I’m just a dopey blogger, what do I know? Here Dr. Fuhrman talks about calorie-counting:

With calorie-counting and point-counting and having to weigh, measure, and calculate amounts eaten, you are following a diet. Who wants to diet and measure portions forever? I enjoy eating. I eat the way I advise all my patients to do, yet I am not overweight. Why? I enjoy eating lots of great tasting stuff and not having to worry about my weight or my health. Intellectually, I know that I am doing the right thing to prevent heart disease and other medical problems from developing in my future. Dieting and measuring out thimble-sized portions of food for the rest of one's life is not something that fits in naturally and permanently into anyone's lifestyle.

And it seems those calorie-counting meters on gym equipment are no better. In fact, many experts think they’re pretty inaccurate. Gina Kolata of The New York Times reports:

You can use your heart rate to gauge your effort, and from that you can plan routines that are as challenging as you want. But, researchers say, heart rate does not translate easily into calories. And you may be in for a rude surprise if you try to count the calories you think you used during exercise and then reward yourself with extra food.


One reason for the calorie-count skepticism is that two individuals of the same age, gender, height, weight and even the same level of fitness can burn a different amount of calories at the same level of exertion.

Claude Bouchard, an obesity and exercise researcher who directs the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., found that if, for example, the average number of calories burned with an exercise is 100, individuals will burn anywhere from 70 to 130 calories.

Part of that is genetic and part is familiarity with the exercise. The more familiar you are with an exercise, the fewer calories you use at the same level of effort, he found in a research study. Subjects rode stationary bicycles six days a week for 12 weeks. They ended up burning 10 percent fewer calories at a given level of effort after their training. The reason, he said, is that people perform an exercise more efficiently as they become more accustomed to it.

There also is a seldom mentioned complication in calculating calories burned during exercise: you should subtract off the number of calories you would be using if you did nothing. Almost no one does that, Dr. Bouchard said. But for moderate exercise, the type most people do, subtracting the resting metabolic rate can eliminate as much as 30 percent of the calories you think you used, he added.

Resting metabolic rates, though, differ from individual to individual and also differ depending on age, gender, body mass, body composition and level of fitness, so guessing at your resting rate also is fraught with error.

Personally, I could care less what those meters read. I go for duration and intensity. Whatever the calories will be, will be—how about you?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

Foods with so-called “healthy” bacteria are all the rage lately. Dairy-based foods containing probioics are everywhere. Lindsey Tanner of the Associated Press reports:

These products contain probiotics, or "friendly" bacteria similar to those found in the human digestive system.


There are supplement pills, yogurts, smoothies, snack bars and cereals, even baby formula and chocolate. Sold by major names like Dannon and Kraft, they're spreading like germs on grocery store shelves and in supermarket dairy cases.

And they come with vague health claims of "regulating your digestive health" or "strengthening your body's defenses."

Experts say probiotics are generally safe, and in some cases might be helpful. More research is needed, and it's a hot new area, reflecting a growing understanding of the role that naturally occurring intestinal bacteria play in health. This week, the National Institutes of Health is hosting a conference where top scientists will discuss recent advances.

Personally, I don’t buy into the hype. Actually, this reminds me of a mind-boggling conversation I overheard at the gym. Okay boys and girls. Grab a seat, its story time. Here’s what happened.

I was at the gym a few months ago, running on the treadmill and next to me were these two portly guys about my age. I'm running along minding my own business, while they're let’s call it, “power-walking,” because at twenty-something jogging was evidently too taxing.

So I overhear them talking and the larger of the two mentions he's on the Atkins Diet, which isn't surprising because he's doughy and unhealthy looking. So naturally I'm ignoring most of the gibberish coming out of his mouth, but all of a sudden he tells his buddy, "Dude you got to eat butter. Butter is like so important. It’s like the only source of a certain bacteria that allows us to digest normally."

What! Ah yes, I can see the evolutionary chart now: ape, ape walking upright, caveman, modern man, modern man churning butter. Unbelievable! People’s general level of nuttiness and gullibility never ceases to amaze me.

When I told Dr. Fuhrman about this, he just sighed and said, “Nonsense.” I’m inclined to agree, how about you?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

“Allergies are increasing because women do not breast feed long enough,” Dr. Fuhrman responded when I asked him to comment on this report claiming peanut allergies in children are on the rise. Andrew Stern of Reuters has more:

Allergies to peanuts and other foods are showing up in children at younger ages for reasons that are not clear, researchers said on Monday, and some urged parents to postpone exposing susceptible children to peanuts.


In a study of 140 children with peanut allergies, the median age of the first allergic reaction was 14 months among those born between 2000 and 2005, compared to 22 to 24 months among allergic children born between 1988 and 1999.

"There's a valid reason to delay introduction to products containing peanuts," said Dr. Todd Green of the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Dr. Fuhrman couldn’t agree less. “It is not delaying peanut introduction that will solve this problem, it is delaying the unhealthful cessation of breast feeding at too young an age,” Dr. Fuhrman points out. He talks more about it in Disease-Proof Your Child:

The antibodies derived from mother’s milk are necessary for maximizing immune system function, maximizing intelligence, and protecting against immune system disorders, allergies, and even cancer. The child’s immune system is still underdeveloped until age of two, the same age when the digestive tract seals the leaks (spaces between cells) designed to allow the mother’s antibodies access to the bloodstream. So picking the age of two as the length of recommended breast-feeding is not just a haphazard guess, it matches the age at which the child is no longer absorbing the mother’s immunoglobulins to supplement their own immune system. Nature designed it that way.

What really surprised me is according to Dr. Fuhrman roasting peanuts actually increase their allergen potency. Maybe it’ll make parents think twice before they slather peanut butter and jelly on two slices of white bread and shoo their kids off to school.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

In light of last week’s report claiming chefs could be to blame for America’s fatness. A new report suggests the contrary. Apparently small portions are all the rage in US restaurants. Reuters explains:

A poll by the National Restaurant Association found that small is now big on restaurant menus, according to 1,282 professional chefs questioned for its second annual "What's Hot...What's Not" food and drink survey.


Other hot trends cited by the chefs, all of whom were members of the American Culinary Federation, included alternative-source ingredients, ethnic flavors, and specialty alcohol.

"The trend of small plates is definitely hot, including offering tasting menus of small portions of food, wine or other alcohol beverages," chef John Kinsella, president of the American Culinary Federation and senior chef instructor at Midwest Culinary Institute in Cincinnati, said in a statement.

Dr. Fuhrman is rather blunt on this topic. To him, smaller portions and counting calories is kind of dumb. He talks about it in his book Eat to Live. Here’s an excerpt:

It is meaningless to compare foods by weight or portion size. Let me provide an example to explain why this is the case. Take one teaspoon of melted butter, which gets 100 percent of its calories from fat. If I take that teaspoon of butter and mix it in a glass of hot water, I can now say that it is 98 percent fat-free, by weight. One hundred percent of its calories are still from fat. It didn’t matter how much water or weight was added, did it?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link